Reexamining Our Approach to College Access

by Angel B. Pérez
August 14, 2017

Recently, I read yet another higher education professional’s case for standardized testing, specifically that making such tests free and universal would help level the playing field for low-income and minority students seeking access to top colleges. But while the SAT’s hefty $57 fee contributes to the barriers low-income students face, eliminating it won’t solve the problem. Access to higher education in America is much more complex.

The problem is our nation’s inability to offer consistent college preparation, academic rigor and counseling across varying socioeconomic communities. Data from the College Board show that the higher your family’s income, the higher your SAT scores are. Standardized tests then do more to keep low-income students out of top colleges than to invite them in. There is no shortage of talent in America. The shortage lies in its cultivation.

Many countries surpassed the United States in educational attainment because they believe in providing equal educational opportunity for all. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, which measures global student performance, notes that the U.S. is not on the top 10 list of achievement in Math, Reading and Science. Canada and Japan on the other hand, are. What do these two nations have in common? Both made equal access to educational opportunity a top priority. In Japan, students may live in a poor neighborhood, but they don’t attend poor schools. In Canada, one third of young people come from immigrant families and, when given the same educational opportunities, perform at the same level as their peers. Equity has clearly benefited Canada tremendously since it is the only nation in the world where more than half its citizens have a college degree. Unfortunately, the U.S. lags behind on this issue. Instead of exerting energy investigating “affirmative action” in college admissions, perhaps the current administration could address the educational inequities that have resulted in America being knocked off the world stage.

A study by the National Association for College Admission Counseling shows that the average public school counselor has a caseload of 476 students and spends only 22% of his or her time on postsecondary counseling. This is in stark contrast to the 55% that private school counselors spend. Most low-income high schools can’t afford to offer expensive test-preparation courses to their students, and while free or low-cost online options are available, the services offered to students who pay for preparation courses are unparalleled.

Yet knowing how stark the contrasts are in preparation between low- and high-income students in America, most colleges still insist on using an exam that was created in 1926 by Carl C. Brigham to “test” America’s intelligence. The exam was originally touted as a tool of meritocracy, the great equalizer among students in America. We all know that dream never actualized. Our world has evolved tremendously since then, and a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be used to evaluate whether a student is ready to succeed in college. Our nation’s talent abounds. It’s higher education’s job to identify it.

From my own experiences as a vice president and teacher at several of America’s most selective institutions, I know it’s easy to dismiss an applicant because he or she doesn’t meet the university’s average test scores, or even worse, would hurt its average on U.S. News and World Report rankings.

But research shows that rather than test scores, the best predictors of success in college are high school grades and academic rigor.

At Trinity College, I have led efforts to rethink how we admit students, and we’ve changed our admissions process to think differently about what it means to be “college ready.” One of the changes we made was to adopt a test-optional policy. Next month, the college will welcome the most diverse first-year class in its history. It includes the highest number of low-income and first-generation students in Trinity’s history. In addition, the academic profile has increased tremendously. The Class of 2021 has twice as many students at the top of our academic evaluation scale as last year’s entering class. We focus on grades, rigor, curriculum and all quantitative data high schools submit to us. But we also pay very close attention to personal qualities that we know will help students succeed in college—qualities such as curiosity, love of learning, perseverance and grit.

Since we’ve redefined our admissions process, members of our faculty have told us that their students are more curious, engaged and involved. Isn’t that what we want from all of our students?

If our educational system in America provided equal educational opportunity to all students regardless of income level, making the SAT and ACT free might significantly increase the number of low-income students in college. However, since this is a far cry from our current reality, it is higher education’s responsibility to think more creatively about whom it allows in the door. We are a long way from ensuring that every citizen has equal access to high-quality education, but in the meantime, universities can play a significant role in ensuring inclusivity of all talent.

The demography of the U.S. is shifting dramatically. Our population is younger, more diverse and less wealthy. If we are going to prepare the nation for future challenges and regain our status on the world stage, we must rethink our approach to college access. We either fundamentally change student preparation for college or make our admissions processes more inclusive of diverse talents and less traditional—but more predictive—measures of success. Actually, our nation’s future depends on our doing both.

Angel B. Pérez is vice president for enrollment and student success at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. and a NEBHE delegate.

7 Responses to “Reexamining Our Approach to College Access”

Data shows that wealthier students tend to perform better on standardized tests like the SAT, but data also shows they perform better in their school grades. Perez is basically trading one metric that favors wealthier kids for another one that does the same. Plus he's getting penalized for it by US News because less than 3/4 of the applicants submitted scores, so the average SAT of those who submitted took at 15% hit from US News. Perez rolled the dice and came up short. And now the school is more beholden to wealthy, less academically-qualified applicants than ever. In the short term, this may advance his career, but it does quite the opposite for Trinity.

I agree with Bob. Another article about how the poor testers are not really less prepared than their peers who excell. It is unfair to kids who do make the grade, and ,must subordinate spots at the best schools for those who are just not as smart. Period.

Only in America can you get a boost to surpass those who ae clearly more prepared.

When using other countries to measure US higher education I find that Angel Perez neglects to advise that other countries have high hurdle exams for college entrance. Be they "A" levels or the like. There is no helping hand for these hurdles. You either pass or fail.

The college entrance process in other countries culls the student population such that the best of the best make it through. Accordingly, it follows that the entrants' math, reading and science averages in other countries are also the best of the best.

There is no affirmative action in other countries which tends to reduce average scores. Meddling with the entrance process in the U.S. only serves to keep the on-time graduation at about 30% of freshmen entering in a particular year. The meddling in the U.S. also serves to leave some students with huge debt and no degree.

Look to the home if you want to deal with the problem of poor results. And not the economics of the home. But rather the home's attitude toward education is the largest impediment to success in life. Not the economics of the home!

I vehemently disagree Bob. To solely put the blame on the home, is like feeding an aspiring athlete McDonalds his or her entire life and then blame the athletes parents because the athlete cannot compete at a collegiate or professional level, when McDonalds is their only source of nutrition. This is a shared responsibility, on all levels and to repair a broken system we need to address it from all levels to enhance the outcome. To view the solution with cultural myopia further erodes sustainable solutions.

A bridge too far for me. I look at the college syllabus and I see the dumbing down of the liberal arts education. I look at Trinity's admissions yield and ask if better meritocracies exist at Trinity's peer institutions. I look at a variety of institutions looking for my support and I find better alternatives!